First-pass thoughts on the new Star Trek movie (2,500 words)

[bironic]

Saw Star Trek: All the Characters Cry Into Darkness last night with a group of local fangirls plus a bonus group ditto who'd picked the same showing. That was a nice follow-up experience to the 2009 Reboot, which I first saw in Boston with my grad school class + significant others + our program administrator. In an attempt to buoy my low

Comments

[bironic]

I am also planning to see it again, and it's funny because I think we have exchanged thinking points. I tend to come up from the details first toward theme second, so I picked out all these little ways in which something worked or didn't work, including characterization, and it's only been after reading people's reactions that the themes are taking form, like what you say here:

2. made some attempt at sparking conversations about ethics. jumbled worldbuilding aside, the conversations about a culture's move towards aggressive militarization following a violent attack (and the preponderance of reactionary attitudes that would condone condemnation-without-trial) [...] the film's brief glance at the question of what constitutes an "appropriate response" to a violent and/or traumatic event (especially when the targets/victims/survivors of said event are participant in a broader hegemonic power structure).

This will be really interesting to pay more attention to next time and see how coherently the movie tries to come at this question; the first time around, I didn't give the movie enough credit (maybe) and assumed that everyone was on board with Starfleet's knee-jerk reaction to hunt down and destroy the archive saboteur without looking into his motivation etc. (since I guess even that early in the story I was on Kirk's side of asking questions about who was really the villain and suspecting that there was something more going on than the Admiral revealed). I filed it under "Kirk uncovers Starfleet conspiracy" and "evil Admiral is trying to subsume scientific exploration under military action" rather than "movie is trying to make a larger point about ethics and current politics" because the Admiral was just so over the top, and, granted, because I had a hard time parsing themes when the pace was so fast. The whole Bush-era metaphor escaped me until the giant crash at the end, but I get it in retrospect with the manhunt across borders and the "weapons of mass destruction," although muddied by the bodies in the weapons themselves, and it'll be interesting on second watch to see if it still feels as disrespectful and ham-handed as the first time, coopting this imagery of recent mass trauma without addressing the fallout (of Khan's final crash, anyway) or making a new or deep point.

why go to all the trouble of creating an alternate timeline if you're going to just sort-of port villains across universes. whyyyyy. I spent most of the movie being like HE'S NOT KHAN and then having a 'fuck you, JJ' moment when he finally announced that his name was Khan.

YES. I literally put my face in my hands as BC started to say the line.

that said, someone on my flist pointed out that nu!Khan is not necessarily the same person as Khan Noonien Singh

I would have loved if the movie had argued that. Right now it seems to me like a way to go LA LA LA YOU ARE NOT REALLY KHAN (an understandable reaction!) but honestly, given the superhuman cryo background, the inclusion of Spock Prime's advice, and the repeat of the engine room scene, I don't see how the movie leaves room to argue that Khan was another Khan. Alas.

[cold_clarity]

I filed it under "Kirk uncovers Starfleet conspiracy" and "evil Admiral is trying to subsume scientific exploration under military action" rather than "movie is trying to make a larger point about ethics and current politics" because the Admiral was just so over the top, and, granted, because I had a hard time parsing themes when the pace was so fast. The whole Bush-era metaphor escaped me until the giant crash at the end, but I get it in retrospect with the manhunt across borders and the "weapons of mass destruction," although muddied by the bodies in the weapons themselves, and it'll be interesting on second watch to see if it still feels as disrespectful and ham-handed as the first time, coopting this imagery of recent mass trauma without addressing the fallout (of Khan's final crash, anyway) or making a new or deep point.

it's interesting--I never got the sense that it was meant to read as Kirk-versus-Starfleet (mostly because Spock spent the whole trip to Qo'noS/Kronos being all like I REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ETHICALLY SOUND PLAN), but I can totally see how and why it might read that way, especially since the film was moving at such a breakneck speed.

I think it will absolutely seem ham-handed in a rewatch--which, actually, isn't the part that would potentially upset me. and I don't think that handling an issue with ham-handed obviousness is the same thing as handling an issue in such a way that it begins to seem like the writers have a trivial or shallow take on the matter (though they do tend to correlate quite a bit). that said, I do think that the discussion-of-topical-issues will ultimately read as trivial in a rewatch because the film doesn't seem to have much interest in investigating the questions it brings up in a deep way? it's interesting that they work to point out that Khan, regardless of the things he's done, should maybe still have a right to a trial! it's interesting that they problematize the issue of the military industrial complex! and the fact that both of those questions are even extant in the film is a step up from ST: 2009. but. the questions get lost and somewhat muddled in the rollercoastering of the rest of the movie--and it just generally feels like Abrams is more interested in filming swashbuckling action sequences than he is in discussing the problems that he brings up at the start of the movie (and sort of mentions again at the end? kinda?).

[cold_clarity]

...this also leads me to recall the New Caprica arc on Battlestar Galactica, which really did upset and offend me, because it felt so transparently like a sloppy and disposable reference to the various conflicts/U.S. occupations in the Middle East that never bothered to present any meaningful insights into said conflicts. I'm not sure why that bothered me so much, but the thematic overtones of STID didn't really bother me at all.

so yes. running with this free-association train: my brother asked me if this movie dealt with "deep questions" in the way that Prometheus dealt with its existential questions--which is to say, he wanted to know if STID was as completely incoherent and disjointed in its presentation and subsequent examination of its themes as Prometheus. and I'm still thinking about this question, because I don't know how to answer it. I walked out of Prometheus feeling much more strongly that the scriptwriting was a complete and total disaster than I did when I walked out of STID, but I'm actually beginning to think that the movies handled their themes in pretty much the same, messy way, and the only reason I liked STID better was because I like Star Trek as a whole, and I'm generally disposed to have an affection for the overall franchise.

I don't know if you saw Prometheus, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that comparison? if you have any, of course.

I would have loved if the movie had argued that. Right now it seems to me like a way to go LA LA LA YOU ARE NOT REALLY KHAN (an understandable reaction!) but honestly, given the superhuman cryo background, the inclusion of Spock Prime's advice, and the repeat of the engine room scene, I don't see how the movie leaves room to argue that Khan was another Khan. Alas.

I think you're totally right on this. which, unfortunately, leaves me in the awkward place of being SO FUCKING UPSET WITH HIM BEING KHAN UGH WHY JJ ABRAMS WHY.

...but hey, I guess this is why fandom exists.

[bironic]

I don't think that handling an issue with ham-handed obviousness is the same thing as handling an issue in such a way that it begins to seem like the writers have a trivial or shallow take on the matter (though they do tend to correlate quite a bit). that said, I do think that the discussion-of-topical-issues will ultimately read as trivial in a rewatch because the film doesn't seem to have much interest in investigating the questions it brings up in a deep way?

Good distinction, and good follow-up point! I'm going to have to see the movie again to be able to comment further.

it's interesting that they work to point out that Khan, regardless of the things he's done, should maybe still have a right to a trial! it's interesting that they problematize the issue of the military industrial complex! […] but. the questions get lost and somewhat muddled in the rollercoastering of the rest of the movie

I'll say-I don't even remember the line about the trial nor recall how much explicit attention was paid to the military-industrial complex. :D See also: the above.

I don't know if you saw Prometheus, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that comparison? if you have any, of course.

Ha, I actually have an outline for a follow-up post because I think it'll be illuminating-er, for me, anyway-to compare my reaction to STID to my reactions to Prometheus (which I just saw a few weeks ago) and the new Superman trailer. (1) Because basically I gave Prometheus more leeway on the sloppy messaging and ridiculous pseudoscience, which I suspect is related to my level of canon devotion (infinitely lower Alien series than for Star Trek) as well as my tendency to look for something good (or bad) in a media source if popular opinion is skewed far in the other direction. There is also a difference there in that the original canon creator made the Alien prequel, whereas for Trek there's more of a feeling of the canon being hijacked by someone who doesn't seem to love or want to stay true to its origins. And (2) because as a casual fan of Superman I am not as invested in what they repeat or "ruin" in the latest rehash, beyond general annoyance at Hollywood's shrinking lag time between reboots and its aversion to doing something new; I'm happy to try it out and enjoy Michael Shannon as what looks like Zod. Which is probably how a lot of people felt about STID & Benedict Cumberbatch.

…Well, there, that is half the post I'm planning to make. :)

[cold_clarity]

Ha, I actually have an outline for a follow-up post because I think it'll be illuminating-er, for me, anyway-to compare my reaction to STID to my reactions to Prometheus (which I just saw a few weeks ago) and the new Superman trailer.

I'm excited to read it!

(1) Because basically I gave Prometheus more leeway on the sloppy messaging and ridiculous pseudoscience, which I suspect is related to my level of canon devotion (infinitely lower Alien series than for Star Trek) as well as my tendency to look for something good (or bad) in a media source if popular opinion is skewed far in the other direction.

it's funny; I didn't dislike Prometheus--I actually paid to see it twice. I enjoyed the sci-fi-thriller-horror aspect of it, and I had fun cheering for the xenomorph monsters at certain points (maybe this says something about me?). I didn't really get frustrated with the film until I started discussing it with other people, and we tried to hash out the various thematic explorations that it carried out (or failed to carry out). and, interested though I am in the examination of faith, divinity, and wonder, those themes felt pretty inelegantly stitched into a franchise that already had a lot of dense material to explore vis-a-vis the nature of horror, the grotesque, gender, sexuality, rage, violence, and the phenomenology of the body.

...actually, now that I say this, I don't want to imply that investigations of faith, divinity, wonder, or awe is somehow mutually exclusive from the issues of grotesquerie and the soma (in fact, given a certain lens, they could be seen as inextricable)--but Prometheus seemed to have a hard time weaving those topics together and struck me as being more interested in the divinity/awe question, leaving the psychosexual horror stuff to just get sort of...tacked on because it's expected of the Alien franchise.

There is also a difference there in that the original canon creator made the Alien prequel, whereas for Trek there's more of a feeling of the canon being hijacked by someone who doesn't seem to love or want to stay true to its origins

this is actually a fascinating point! Ridley Scott was the director on Prometheus, but Damon Lindelof was one of the two main writers credited on the project. given that Scott never exhibited much interest in the divinity/awe/wonder stuff in the original Alien (though I can't speak for the Alien sequels, since I never saw them), I'm going to assume (and have been told by others who know his work better than I do) that Lindelof is responsible for the questions of faith and belief popping up throughout the story. Lindelof is also credited as one of the main writers for STID, and he and Abrams have a relationship going back at least as far as Lost (both of them worked as executive producers, as well as writers, for that series)...and I'm nnnnot really sure what point I'm trying to draw out here, except that maybe jarring scriptwriting is typical of Lindelof and/or Abrams?

who knows, really. either way, I'm excited for your post!

[cold_clarity]

also, I'm sorry that I keep leaving you mile-long replies! I hope I'm not coming off as...overly argumentative (or just straight-up obnoxious). I tend to uncover my own thoughts better through conversation, so...here I am? thanks for letting me chatter on, at least!